Maimonides wrote in his book 'Guide for the Perplexed' about the 'creation of the word' preceding all of creation, and thus, stressing the sanctity of the concept of the word.
The letter which form the word is described as a sanctified (H. 'qadosh', Ar. 'quddus' vehicle to carry divine messages, attributed by God with a 'neshamah' (Ar. 'nasma', or 'soul' or 'breath'.
This doctrine had serious consequences; not only the text becomes divine itself; the language as a whole, and the occupation of those who research and explain it, and even their explanations became sanctified.
The fact that a text can be interpreted in different ways, was explained as a divine attribution of the language, being able to convey different meanings with same same words, all of coarse divine and sacred.
It is not hard to understand that this doctrine led to the start of a sanctified clergy (Levi, Cohen classes), divine symbolism as 'kiddush ha-shem' which is sanctifying the name (of God), tagim (Ar. Taj); crowning of certain letters, which ultimately led to gematria (assigning numerical value to letters) and kabbala (receiving mystical wisdom out of symbolic readings of the text).
It easy turned into idolatry of the letter and the prevalence of mysticism at the expense of rationalism. Its utterers could easily claim 'God spoke through them', and that 'they were the only ones who had the key to understanding the word', which eventually led to the assignment of an important social role for the clergy to monopolize on the interpretation and in keeping the system intact.
This is a concept which is unknown to islam (by which from now on I only mean sola-scriptura islam), but its influences are noticeable on traditionalists, both what we call 'mainstream' in the 21th century (the largest sunni and shia sects), as their offshoots. Even muslims who claim to adhere to a solo-scriptura methodology, like 19ers, are clearly influenced by this psycho-linguistic phenomenon.
Language is a human medium, so it is deficient in advance. It is heterogenic in its origin, not divine, nor mystical. It is an attempt of homo sapiens to express itself through a conceptual system of symbols which are designed to reflect ideas or sounds. It follows certain principles which are mathematically predictable and is called 'grammar'. That which has no logical explanation because its origin has been forgotten, or it simply doesnt have any, is respectfully called an 'irregularity'.
The quran distances itself from the sanctification of language. Although it does refer to itself indirectly as being 'the word of God', this is metaphorical and should be understood within the context of all verses in the book which deal with language as a phenomenon, like the verse which states that if all seas were filled with ink and the trees were pens, it still wouldnt be able to encompass Gods words, and the verse which refers to the 'mother of books', and many others.
It also refers to Arabic as a language, and the quran as being written in this language, hereby confirming its limits.
This doesnt mean its function as a message is inadequate. It does not mean the message is not complete or detailed, it does not mean the message is flawed or corrupted or not clear. It simply means it is limited by its own linguistic characteristics.
Worshipping the message or messenger in stead of the One who sent it, is obviously in conflict with the message of the quran and constitutes a problem which has repeated itself over and over in history.
It is the MEANING of the message which is important.
Some interesting fallacious questions which could arise, are;
How can a deficient medium convey a perfect message?
Answer is, it doesnt. The question is biased, it presupposes that the message is perfect. The message is not perfect, its sufficient. It was never meant to convey a 'perfect message'.
How can a perfect being convey a message in a deficient medium?
Answer is twofold. God is not subject to our concept of 'perfection' or 'being', so the question is inherently seriously flawed. Never project anything onto God; He can not be subject to anything. As for the message, one could say 'Why wouldn't God be able to convey a message in a deficient medium (rhetorical)?' , or directly 'God can do that'.
A justified question could sound like
What are the consequences of a message in a deficient medium?
The consequences are that such a message must focussed on ideas and concepts, rather then literal commands, it must be meant for inspiration to motivate spiritual enlightenment and growth into a certain direction, rather than the constitution of a law. Literal commands should have an exemplary function to inspire, instead of a dogmatic one, but one should not be lured into the traps of endless theoretical conjecture. The message is clear.
Is the quran the word of God?
Not literally. To keep it in quranic symbolism; if God would manifest Himself to us directly, we wouldn't survive it. The quran is too deficient to be able to encompass or describe 'His words'.
Yet the quran is the best and only spiritual guidance available of its kind.
The quran is the word of man, inspired and protected, not dictated, by God.
Salam all ,
A brief introduction
Good that you have revealed your methodologies , their methodologies .
For those who are not aware , the basic , the source , the line or the background of the thread above by member Nazzam is following the methodologies of the school called Historirisme , or Historical criticism , developed based and through the research and the studies of orientalist back centuries ago
"Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient text in order to understand "the world behind the text".
The primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. This may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events which the text describes. An ancient text may also serve as a document, record or source for reconstructing the ancient past which may also serve as a chief interest to the historical critic. In regards to Semitic biblical interpretation, the historical critic would be able to interpret "The Literature of Israel" as well as "The History of Israel". source Wikipedia .
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
I'll come back to this in some more details , the cut from Wikipedia is only to give the introduction of the school and its origin as Wikipedia source is not precise and do not tell all the truth and things behind .
There are a lot to say and to discuss regarding the school , their methodologies and finally the conclusions they got and from wish text are based their conclusions ? that's very important because their conclusion is based on the historical criticism of old and new testament , the major conclusions they've got to is that the old and new testament being developed historically by humans nothing from above ( sky) nothing been revealed from above , so nothing vertical all was horizontal .
Lets assume that old and new testament they they have used under their historical critical methods is what is known in the qur'an as al-Tawrah & al-anjeel . One of the tool they are using as a rule or as absolute conclusion in their linguistic critical studies is that language is something historical then it is deficient , that's absolutely right as long as we talk about languages not tongue , these conclusions are based on the critical linguistic of the Latin languages especially as these languages are Arbitrariness there is no order or construction on them only absolute Arbitrariness .
Did they studied these text on its original script ( tongue ) ? ! they studied English translation of the babel based on old latin , greec , Syriac & Aramaic , was these the primary tongue of the al-awrah and al-anjeel ( gospel ) ?
The basic fundamental vision of the Historical criticism school is that everything should and can be known and studied through the history of humans only , nothing extra or outside of that concept , it's known also as the horizontal methodology instead of the vertical methodology , mean that here is no connection with anything from above , from the heaven , nothing been sent from the top , everything is a human interaction that happened through their history , deeply mean no intervention from anything unseen
After they almost finish with the old & new testament and concluded what they have concluded they recently introduced their school into universities of countries who speak Arabic dialect , But the school is as old as the oriental-ism itself , for the people who can read Arabic , can read the research and studies of
Mohamed Arkon
Mohamed 3ab al jabri
Nassr Hamid abu Zayed
They are the well known writers in "arabic countries" known by using the historical critical method used in analyzing old and new testament .
I would like to be clear here that the critics and the method and the analyze it self is mostly scientific especially the archaeological evidence as it is touchable and measurable facts, but when it come to linguistic or anthropological analysis their conclusions is what someone should be careful about and examine deeply and put it under critics , their conclusions itself should be under critics
I 'll come back in detail about the content of your post , before that i would like to signal and make it known to the members here that I
I Do not worship ( serve ) letters or numbers , and that when i was referring to sounds in my previous post never said that they are sacred or divine but i literally i said that the arabic tongue is
Rabani mean following in its very basic form and construction Allah's creation and order ( ر so its following the very natural order that is available in the physical systems same as ex automatic sytems ( nervous system , biological system , climatic system etc) , what i will post in that topic will show what i meant.
This was the post
Salam to All ,
First i suggest if administrator could create a new file / topic designed for linguistic , this is a huge branch that need a separate file , i have a lot useful information to share in that matter so we can discuss it all together.
Member Pazuzu and member Loxbox did rise one of the main points what i was about to say , i will develop and confirm some of the points that have been raised in this this post and in others inchallah.
Brother Ayman some of your claim in that topic is simply very very wrong and misleading about one of the major evidence of the Quran , and what you hold in that matter are simply some of orientalist views and claim in the past and nowday , the Arabic tongue ( ) is not sacred but its Rabani mean following in its very basic form and construction Allah's creation and order ( ر so its following the very natural order that is available in the physical systems same as ex automatic sytems ( nerveous sytem , bilogical system , climatical systms etc) , what i will post in that topic will show what i meant.
One of the major key to understand the topic of the "Tongue " in general and the "Arabic Tongue " in particular is to understand the following
Is there a connection between sound ( phonetics) and the meaning or is it arbitrary ?
How was the tongue developed in the beginning
What does the word Arabi and Aa'jami stand for.
wht doe the word "Al-kalimat " mean in the quran ?
5.Whats does the (initials ) in the begining of the verse stands for ?
And this is the link of the thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603850.0
Have patient @GODsubmitter , examine their conclusions deeply first and its projection in society , and the perception and application of the qur'an and its teaching in society before you take any emotional decision , there might be something behind .
What works for old and new testament won't work for the qur'an .
To be continued
